Loss and damage: A review of the literature and directions for future research

Abstract

Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.

Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate

“…Research and policy work on NELs includes concerns with loss of biodiversity, territory, cultural heritage and encompasses the emerging issue of climate-induced human mobility. While there is no official definition of L&D under the UNFCCC, current scholarly understandings of L&D often emphasise the unavoidability and irreversibility of certain climate change impacts and the role played by constraints and limits to adaptation as drivers of adverse outcomes ( McNamara and Jackson, 2019 ).…”

“…Mechler et al (2019) also identify a number of ways of ‘grounding’ the ‘so far highly political debates’ associated with L&D. However, most of the analyses that suggest de-politicisation of L&D do not go further in unpacking the politics. Recent research has suggested that there is a tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political determinants of the debate ( McNamara and Jackson, 2018 ). This – combined with a more general lack of research on L&D policy development in political science and in international relations – constitutes a barrier to developing a deeper understanding of the challenges in this area of global climate governance.…”

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

“…Discussions of rights in the context of climate change adaptation also concern the issue of loss and damage: cases where adaptation is no longer possible, or where it has failed. A detailed discussion of loss and damage is beyond the scope of this review (for overviews, see McNamara and Jackson 2019;Mechler et al 2019). Suffice it to say that many of the questions around loss and damage mirror those related to displacement and migration, notably those around loss of culture and identity and "ontological security".…”

Loss and damage in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group II): a text-mining analysis

“…While some studies (e.g. Doelle & Seck, 2019;McNamara & Jackson, 2019;Tschakert et al, 2019) assign specific meanings to the words 'loss' (permanent impacts) and 'damage' (reversible impacts), it would be inaccurate to conclude that the adverse effects of climate-related stressors, reported in WGII AR5, tend to be irreversible. For example, when adverse effects of climate change on livelihood security are discussed, the authors usually speak of 'loss of livelihood' without implying that livelihoods are lost forever.…”